Proving Atheism Is True

[theVOID]

That makes no sense. Fundamentalism can also be refuted by moderate theists. Atheism is just not believing in gods.

Yes moderate theists can, however, most atheists spend most of their time attacking fundamentalism (And doing a dam good job).
Well, in my opinion atheists attack fundamentalist ideas.

Any belief in god is stupid, not just the violent bigoted ones.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I used to think Atheists were seekers of the truth

I believe you. So what? What you believed is irrelevant, especially when as in this case,you happen to be wrong. I repeat: an atheists is only a person who disbelieves in gods. In every other regard we are just ordinary people,with the same traits as everyone else. ---

Some of us are smart,some of us are stupid,some are educated,some not.. Most of us are fairly decent; we obey the law,don't steal or hurt others,and don't try to impose our beliefs on others.Some of us have no problem with saying"I don't know" and have no need for an argument from incredulity ,aka' god of the gaps' to give meaning to anything. Some of us seek TRUTH ,( if there be such a thing:I do not believe so) Some of us ,such as myself ,are skeptics and insist on evidence for any claims, and that all questions always remain open.

Most of us want a peaceful life for ourselves and our families. Some of us are complete cunts ,just like some theists. Our personalities and character are not formed by our atheism.That is impossible, given what atheism is and is not.

Interestingly,many of us here are former theist whose personalities and character were formed as theists. Atheism is an effect ,not a cause.

Me? Skeptic, secular humanist, realist,egoist, cynic and misanthrope. I am also an agnostic atheist.IE I assert only "I do not believe [due to lack of evidence]" I make no claims.

A cynic is what at idealist calls a realist (Sir Humphrey Appleby)

[solja247]

I believe you. So what? What you believed is irrelevant, especially when as in this case,you happen to be wrong. I repeat: an atheists is only a person who disbelieves in gods. In every other regard we are just ordinary people,with the same traits as everyone else. ---

Some of us are smart,some of us are stupid,some are educated,some not.. Most of us are fairly decent; we obey the law,don't steal or hurt others,and don't try to impose our beliefs on others.Some of us have no problem with saying"I don't know" and have no need for an argument from incredulity ,aka' god of the gaps' to give meaning to anything. Some of us seek TRUTH ,( if there be such a thing:I do not believe so) Some of us ,such as myself ,are skeptics and insist on evidence for any claims, and that all questions always remain open.

I understand that. I mostly prefer talking to atheists than theists, most of the time they are more rational and logical.

However, A lot/some atheists believe this:

Any belief in god is stupid, not just the violent bigoted ones.

This sentence has no backing, philosphically speaking. This claim that any belief in God is 'stupid'. Is unwarranted and is clearly ignorant that the majority of great western philosphers were theists or Deists. And did have a belief in God. People who are much more smarter than you and if they were alive today, would make the above person look stupid (and Dawkins for that matter).

Interestingly,many of us here are former theist whose personalities and character were formed as theists. Atheism is an effect ,not a cause.

Theists are ussally restricted in their thoughts and questions thus, when a book comes around called, 'The God Dellusion.' it makes a lot of people re-question theism. However, Dawkins book doesnt attack God, it attempts too, but fails to do so (Dawkins is a scientist, not a philopsher).
Dawkins attacks fundamentalists, the idea of hell needs to be discarded by Christians (It is unbiblical)

[parttimeprojectionist]

you are in the most infintile begining stages of becoming an agnostic thiest, (not meant as an insult, just an observation)

once your cognitive dissonance "clears" that is.

[NoMoreFaith]

This sentence has no backing, philosphically speaking. This claim that any belief in God is 'stupid'. Is unwarranted and is clearly ignorant that the majority of great western philosphers were theists or Deists. And did have a belief in God. People who are much more smarter than you and if they were alive today, would make the above person look stupid (and Dawkins for that matter).

It amuses me when people make unsubstantiated claims about a creator, a saviour who rose from the dead and waterskied in slow motion and then points to someone else and says "Haha, have heard what that crazy guy believes in! Talking snakes!"

Otherwise your argument reads like this;

A) Person A is intelligent
B) Person A believes in God
C) Therefore God Exists!

Interestingly enough thou, you wish to cite intelligent philosophers, yet almost 3/4 of "professional philosophers" are atheist (Bourget & Chalmers 2009). So do the philosophical opinions of historical figures supercede the majority philosopher consensus?
Now I'm not claiming argumentum ad populum, but I am trying to express how worthless the argument from authority and intelligence is in this case.

Dawkins attacks fundamentalists, the idea of hell needs to be discarded by Christians (It is unbiblical)

You're right he is not a philosopher, this is commented on by atheists and theists alike, but this hardly the only reference in the world. There are plenty sound philosophical arguments against a supernatural entity as well.

You may try to exclude yourself by saying that only fundamentalists are attacked, but you are not excluded. Your beliefs may be more sophisticated, no doubt, but still irrational, assertion of an unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Whether its talking snakes, or resurrected deities, or flying horses the fact your arguments have become more sophisticated than antiquity to avoid the awkward fact that much of what is claimed has been contradicted by scientific inquiry is quite irrational in itself.
If the natural world shows contradictions in your belief, changing your beliefs to exclude that which is shown to be false and cherry picking those that cannot be falsified or have not yet been shown to be false as still true, is still irrational, regardless of apologetics.

[Phil]